jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (77 posts)

The worst thing that the British have done for modern society....

  1. profile image0
    ryankettposted 6 years ago

    Is to devise the philosophies in the Victorian era which have led to the sinister use of Eugenics in the 20th and 21st century.

    I am not proud of that. And I doubt that this is what the great Charles Darwin would have wanted.

    Those elitist and somewhat disturbing ideologies were, ultimately, the rubble which laid the foundations for the early 20th century obsession with eugenics.

    Whilst most developed nations used them, they would go on to play a large part in Hitlers ideology. I don't think that we should forget that, Americans too.

    It saddens me therefore to see a new form of 21st century eugenics, some of which mirrors those used by the Nazi party; some of which are being used in the UK. It is a slap in the face for any man still alive who fought on the frontline and watched brothers die in the name of liberty and freedom.

    I am writing a book, by the way, on 21st century eugenics. I'll let you know when it is finished.

    1. profile image0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What do you propose to do about it? Is their anything people can do to alter it?

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No.

        Eugenics is now largely American. What do you propose to do about it?

        1. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Largely American? Possibly, however do we really know what is going on in China?

          1. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            That is true enough. Of course, eugenics is also widespread in Israel, so I do take that back.

            But eugenics is very much prominent in America, the illuminati have advocated eugenics to reduce world population for some time. Largely through the use of vaccines but also through GM crops, by reducing the fertility rate of those that consume. Fluoride in 70% of American drinking water. The intention of those is to reduce fertility rates.

            The "good club", to be more specific, Bates and Co. The organisations which existed pre-WWII remain to this day, despite eugenics being demoted from social norm to social taboo as a result of the Nazi party.

            1. profile image59
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Floride is bad stuff. There is also information out there that suggest a heart disease link....

              1. profile image0
                ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                It's more toxic than lead.

                Flouride was a nazi policy, they put flouride in water because it causes minor brain damage and makes people easier to control.

                It doesn't make them more stupid, but makes it more difficult for them to express emotions, and thus people are less dangerous to the establishment. Martin Luther King wouldn't have been as good at talking had he been exposed to just 12 months of the flouride concentration in the drinking water which currently exists in some parts of America, put it that way.

                Giving a child under three flouride can induce severe autism, yet drinking water does not come with this health warning. I am luckily not in a flouride area, if I were I would be drinking only bottled water, which would cost me a fortune.

                Flouride will probably take up three chapters of my book, at least, its a big one.

    2. Shahid Bukhari profile image61
      Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      ryankett

      The worse they did, was relegating Humans, to the status of Native Slave like animals ... whose sole purpose in life ... made possible, with the help of the local smart ones was to toil, for their Colonial masters, and sit silently, when their masters were Plundering their fellow humans ...

      Phoebe Pike, What I propose to do, in fact, am doing... is ensuring, that their likes ... in our times, and future ... the so called Super Killers ...  and their lackeys ... the Economic Colonizers ... are not allowed to repeat, what the British, Portuguese, Spanish and other Europeans and Asian Colonialists did in the Past  ...

      And I do, whats to be do done ... not with terror, or violence, for these are the colonialist cowards Instruments ... I do so, by creating Awareness among the trodden masses ... telling them of their Rights ...  and the humane Obligation, humans owe to fellow humans ...

      Will it help if I said, this is the 21st Century ... not the 15th, 16th, or the 17th, 18th or the 19th ... not even, the 20th Century A.D.
      For the Righteous can now, and will rise, from within, the Tyrant's ranks ... and discard their contemporary perpetrators of Injustice and Tyranny in human Society ...

      And I am not talking about a distant future ... for it will be sooner ... much sooner than they can anticipate.

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The British did not start the slave trade, the earliest record of slavery dates back to 1760bc.

        The Roman Empire was built on the slave trade, as was Ancient Greece.

        In Medieval times slavery was commonplace throughout the world, most notably in the Byzantine Empire.

        By no stretch of the imagination did the British start the slave trade. Perhaps what you are referring to is the Atlantic slave trade.

        The assumption that the British were the pioneers of that would be completely wrong, if you were to state something like: "The Europeans were responsible for the Atlantic slave trade" then your statement would be accurate.

        The country responsible for the most trafficking of slaves was actually Portugal, followed by the British. The French, Spanish, and the Dutch were also very active in this 'industry'.

        In fact the first to ship slaves across the Atlantic were the Portuguese and Spanish, who shipped them to South America.

        There were actually very few Europeans step foot in Africa, the vast majority of African slaves were shipped to Europe BY AFRICANS, that industry was very much one which Africans themselves played a major part in. African prisoners were sold to Europeans by Africans, perhaps the descendants of those Africans can also apologise for the role of their ancestors in the slave trade? Thought not.

        Just because the British are the only European country to formally apologise for the slave trade, it doesn't make us the only guilty party and certainly doesn't make us the founders of that industry. Neither should that apology be an admission that the British were wholey responsible for the slave trade, and frankly that apology should have been accompanied with a "And now, these countries, should apologise... etc, etc, etc".

        Of course, what people often fail to recognise, is that whilst the British (like much of the world) participated in the slave trade, despite in no way starting it, they WERE the first European country to make the slave trade illegal through the  Slave Trade Act 1807 and then made slavery illegal in the UK completely through the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Most other countries followed suit within a few decades.

        If you want to pin the blame on Britain for a largely global industry (The Muslim world was also extremely active, as were Asians), then perhaps back up your claims with a little more knowledge.

        Now, Eugenics, that DID start in the UK. Anything to add to that one?

        1. Shil1978 profile image94
          Shil1978posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          They did pillage countless countries of their wealth by occupying them/subjugating them/enslaving them basically. Isn't it a fact that they treated the populace of many of the erstwhile colonies as slaves? Whether you buy and sell or seek to profiteer through their lands and deny their peoples of their rightful freedom/rights to the produce of their own lands, it is much the same thing!!

          1. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I wasn't denying that. I was pointing out that the slave trade was largely a European thing, and that the same was practiced by Spain, Portugal, France and Holland, in their own colonisation of the world.

            The British are always most closely associated with colonisation and the slave trade. Anybody who cares to read more about the history of the slave trade would find that a) we didn't start it, b) were not the most active, c) we are the only European country to offer a formal state apology for these activities, d) we ended the slave trade.

        2. Shahid Bukhari profile image61
          Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Why are you putting in a belated word for those, who were tyrants ... practicing injustice, under various pretexts ... White mans Burden ... Obligation of the Nobles ... Civilizing the Uncivilized Natives ... unloading  all their noble burdens, via Divide and Rule.

          They colonized, and enslaved, not only Asia ... but the whole of Africa, Australia, Newzealand, North and South Americas ... the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Islands ... and the Eskimos etc.. I do not find it chivalrous, for one to kill someone with bows and arrows ... Incas, American Red Indians, Muari, the Zulus ... and lately, the people of Agoniland.

          Do you read History ... if you trace back the Roots ... you will discover, that all the present day turmoil, in the world ... is due to, what they did ... Unless, you maintain a stiff upper lip ... their corrupting the Cultures and much older than their, Civilizations ...

          Placing one against the other ... has led to the modern day Slaughters in Africa, their carving Palestine, has created a potential, Armageddon ... and Asia's Political Turmoils ... Europe's divisions, and the American Federations, and Canadian Confederation ... are leading to, what is essentially fatal, for humankind.

          Please ... do not divert the topic ... I am not asking you to apologize for what they did ... I am just asking you to stop justifying their Actions, in the new name of World Peace, and Civilization.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image86
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Shahid, everything you say is true, and White society, as a general rule, does not acknowledge that its current privileged status is a result of relentless exploitation of non-White societies. You ask, "do you read History?" The answer is probably yes, but the history that most of us white guys read is history written by other white guys, and much of that either overlooks or tries to justify the colonialism of the last several hundred years.

            1. Shahid Bukhari profile image61
              Shahid Bukhariposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Dear Jeff Berndt

              What do you want me to do ... digress from the topic of Tyranny, and start a new debate on Christian, Judaic and Islamic Beliefs points of Conflict ...  do you need a statement, my condemning Racism, Slavery, and and Capitalism  ?

              You see I am not Racist ... nor a tyrannical Slave driver ... I have a life time to prove, true ... what I am saying ... but reckon, its time for me to say
              bbyeee.

              Regards

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image86
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                "What do you want me to do ... digress from the topic of Tyranny, and start a new debate on Christian, Judaic and Islamic Beliefs points of Conflict "
                Uh, no, not at all.
                "do you need a statement, my condemning Racism, Slavery, and and Capitalism  ? "
                No. Mate, I'm trying to agree with and support you.

                "You see I am not Racist ... nor a tyrannical Slave driver"
                I never thought you were one.

                "I have a life time to prove, true ... what I am saying"
                You don't have to prove it to me; I already know it's true.

                "its time for me to say bbyeee."
                I do apologize if I sounded like I was disagreeing with you; I was trying to support what you posted. I hope you'll rejoin the discussion, because I think we need to hear what you have to say.

                1. profile image0
                  ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  "I hope you'll rejoin the discussion, because I think we need to hear what you have to say."

                  And I hope that... if he does... rejoin... the discussion, he.... uses a... few... less... dots.. because its hard to... read.

          2. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I will maintain a stiff upper lip, I don't see how your contribution was relevant to my original post and if you want to discuss the entire history of the world in the past four hundred centuries then I suggest that you start a new thread. Which I will subsequently choose not to participate in. If you want to discuss eugenics, then by all means contribute. You will also note that I started this thread 12 days ago.

            1. junko profile image78
              junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              ryankett: Can you give site another time in the history of slavery(man's inhumanity to man) that eugenics was insitutionalised for centuries as in the american slavery experence?

              1. junko profile image78
                junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Ref. Breeding people like live stock to make a better and stronger slave.

                1. profile image0
                  ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The theories and philosophies of eugenics were not developed then. I am specifically talking about the Sir Francis Galton movement.

                  Which was a direct result of the Charles Darwin theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, we would not have seen the Galton theories, we would not have seen the Americans experiment and practice eugenics in the early 20th century, and we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party copy the American way. That, specifically, is what I am referring to with my 'apology'.

                  If you want to go further back in history, to discuss the possible existance of eugenics in in our world pre-Galton, then you can go all the way back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

                  Either Galton was the pioneer of eugenics, post-slave trade, or Plato was. You can't have it both ways. 

                  Referring to 'eugenics' prior to the Galton papers would be like claiming that the theory of evolution had been devised two hundred years before Darwin, which it hadn't.

                  1. profile image0
                    ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Of course, selective breeding is known as 'positive eugenics' which I can assure you is much more pleasant than the sinister 'negative eugenics' being discretely employed in the 21st century.

              2. profile image0
                ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I actually see eugenics as having absolutely zero to do with the slave trade.

                The term 'eugenics' was coined by Sir Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, in the 1870's (possibly even later).

                I can see absolutely no link between the theories and practice of eugenics and the use of slaves for profit, they are two entirely different entities and are entirely unrelated.

                I can give you examples of eugenics, sure. But it had very little to do with the transatlantic movement of slaves, the movement came much later.

                The forced sterilization of those with mental health problems in Canada and the US, THAT is eugenics. The fluoridization of water in low income areas of the UK and the US, to stop the poor from breeding, THAT is 21st century eugenics.

                The selective euthanasia of the physically and mentally disabled in Nazi Germany, THAT was eugenics. There is absolutely no link between the slave period and eugenics. Period.

                1. junko profile image78
                  junkoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I do find simularities in eugenics and american slavery. I understand your response and thank you for responding. I'll just say it all began with Alexander The Great.

                  1. profile image0
                    ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You are right of course, it is effectively what eugenics stands for, being selective.

                    But, Darwin was the one who said that civilization was thwarting  natural selection. In other words, we aren't letting mother nature pick off the weak.

                    That is, more specifically, the basis upon which the word 'Eugenics' was created (by Galton).

                    It has almost exclusively been related to one thing... resources. Hitler thought that physically or mentally incapable people were expensive and a drain on society.

                    Galton believed that the poor should be given no assistance, no healthcare, and that they should be discouraged from breeding.

                    The most disturbing thing about Galtons philosophy, one which was supported by a young Churchill, was his belief that those whom were poor were intellectually inferior.

                    That was, of course, before the days of intelligience tests. The IQ test followed in the early 20th century, and that then formed a basis upon which people were 'selected'. The obvious flaw being that an IQ test can only measure three of the seven forms of intelligience.

        3. kirstenblog profile image78
          kirstenblogposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hey Ryan, do you know when slavery was officially made illegal in the UK (not the british empire, which is all over the net, for the UK specifically it is a lot harder to find and is very interesting LOL)

          1. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            No idea? But, I thought that the United Kingdom and Britain were very much the same thing? hmm

            1. kirstenblog profile image78
              kirstenblogposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              The thing with mainland england in regards to owning a slave is that there was no actual law for people living here on owning slaves. I have gone a searching to find the dates for when it was actually in law that you may not own a slave here in jolly old england and on one legal site they state that the human rights act of 1998, which came into force in Octover 2000 grants the right to be free from slavery in Article 4..... http://www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/freed … abour.html

              I never rely on one site tho so continued a lookin and found a QI forum on the topic. I actually learned about this from good old Steven Fry on QI. Anyho, the info I get there is very unsure, the show itself says that slavery in the UK has been banned since april 2010 but it is pointed out that the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits slavery in all countries including the UK since the 3rd of September 1953, not massively long ago as the oldest date I can find.

              The thing that was pointed out is that a persons status as a slave was never recognised by local laws in the first place. A slave would never, legally speaking been seen as a slave in the first instance, so no ban on owning one. Oddly it is well reported that slavery is alive and well in cities like our good old London town hmm

              edit - was going to give you the QI link and forgot smile
              http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t= … 9fb42b1d9e

              1. ThomasE profile image75
                ThomasEposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Slavery was declared illegal in England (and, subsequently therefore the United Kingdom when that formed) under the doctrine of the Somersett's Case in 1772. It was then made illegal in the rest of the British Empire under the Slave Trade Act 1807 (which prevented people obtaining new slaves) and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (which freed the last slaves in the British empire) and latter antislavery acts.

                England was the first nation in the world to declare slavery illegal.

        4. thisisoli profile image72
          thisisoliposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          The history of British slavery is actually really interesting, it was pretty much stamped out in the 1100's, being viewed as distasteful and immoral, not to mention economically unviable.

          Slavery began to re-appear during colonial times, but for the most part it was done under the table, and not so much in British ports as in colonial British territories, where the slave trade was practiced much more freely.

          Though, this does not cover things such as the orphan workhouses etc, which were in essence another form of slavery.

          1. recommend1 profile image72
            recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You need to go visit the slave trade areas of Bristol !  And how else could a port miles up a river in a pretty innaccessible part of the country get so big !  and this was the 17 and 1800's right up to the end.

            We have to own up to being THE slave traders of our time, including supplying all the slaves to the US.

            Interestingly the Moors were a huge problem on the coasts of Cornwall and Devon when they raided for blonde haired blue eyed slaves in the 12, 13 and 1400's I believe it was

    3. tritrain profile image82
      tritrainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'd not been familiar with the term eugenics, until now.

      I can understand your concern about it. 

      I think a lot of people share this concern with this "superiority complex".

  2. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago

    Personally - I think the worst thing we introduced to modern society was the concentration camp. sad

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That goes hand in hand with Eugenics, in fact it effectively merges into the same thing.

    2. Gingerrevolution profile image57
      Gingerrevolutionposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      here here

  3. waynet profile image78
    waynetposted 6 years ago

    Eugenics is only ever ok if it only targeted hereditary diseases and eradicated them or phased them out, as to the uses of racial selection I don't think it should, the master race as the Nazis used to go on about would be a bit too bland and everyone having blonde hair would be subject to blonde jokes all the time and that would be a case of taking the piss!

    After having heard about eugenics, it does sound like an interesting subject nonetheless....

  4. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    that's an easy one..

    http://www.rickey.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Susan-Boyle-Birthday.jpg

    1. Joy56 profile image60
      Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      she is from Scotland thank you very much......

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Brenda, Scotland IS in Britain wink

        1. Joy56 profile image60
          Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          aw yeah but she is not English.....

          We need to take England away from the other three altogether.  as i am convinced anyone in Scotland, would not want to be associated with anything English.......

            do you being English.........  want to be part of all things Scottish.......

          Let's talk about the national health.   My dad was so well looked after..... I remember you saying your grandad was, maybe we should have another thread, talking about all things bright and beautiful, English of course.....

  5. Pearldiver profile image81
    Pearldiverposted 6 years ago

    Clearly you are using this information to build a hub... so please ensure that you include this in the correct context.

    For Kiwis there are two things that have had a negative effect on the modern society here.

    1) The NZ Maori were involved in a treaty with the British in the 1840s ... this allowed Britain to colonize and Rape NZs resources.  Fifteen years ago the Maoris claimed all the land back from the Crown and were legally beaten in their ridiculous treaty claims, that also included air space, radio waves and everything else that was not invented or subject to the 1840 treaty. They appealed again and were thrown out again by our NZ legal system. So they took their claim to the British Privy Council and the English judges overturned the NZ High Court decisions and allocated the ability to sue the NZ Government for multi-Billion dollar claims.  The treaty was with the British and they dealt it back to the NZ Public in a way that ensured absolutely all culpability for the original terms of the treaty that lay with Britain, was flicked along with the settlement billions onto the NZ European population, while they slipped out the back door and pulled the 'CommonWeath' card!
    Today our country is severely affected by those rulings and Britain got off with ALL the resources for 150 years!
    Factually, the British should have supported the NZ Government and not reneged on payment on this deal... It Broke the Country's back and the money to settle should have come from England.. perhaps from the proceeds of the forests and produce that were stripped over the preceding 150 years.  Of course, this same process was used elsewhere in the world also... sad

    2) Even Worse than this is an absolute shocker!!
    Most Kiwis Find it really Bad Taste when English Tourists come here and wear Socks and Sandles.... And Folded Handkerchiefs on their heads! yikes

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Clearly you are using this information to build a hub"

      No, I am writing a book about EUGENICS, the rest of the contents of this thread, including your contribution, have absolutely NO revelance to either a) my original post in this thread, or b) that book.

      I can also confirm that I never wear socks and sandals, the only 'sandals' that I even own are actually flip flops, these:

      http://www.transsurf.co.uk/images/products/main/havaianas-brazil-brown.jpg

      And do not get worn with socks.

      1. Joy56 profile image60
        Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        sexy sandals them, got to love thsm

  6. bgamall profile image81
    bgamallposted 6 years ago

    The concept of the central bank was certainly the worst thing the Brits thought up. The central banks actually have funneled profits to the banksters, not the communists, as Marx thought would happen.

    The banksters are private fascists, and they established ponzi lending and hurtful easy money not seen since the Great Depression.

    And always, mainstreet pays for the speculation the banksters set up.

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Again, the Brits were NOT the first people to adopt the idea of a central bank, Holland had one 85 years before us, as did Sweden. I don't know where all this misinformation comes from.

      I can only assume that it is fashionable to blame the British for everything that happened pre-1900 and the Americans for everything post-1900.

      Maybe the Americans will pass that on to somebody else, maybe we can all blame the Chinese for everything in 50 years time?

      Karl Marx was also a German, but don't let that get in the way of a good old moan about the British. But, don't worry, we are famous for moaning ourselves wink

      The British had a central bank long before Marx was alive, it was the US that copied his ideals when establishing the Federal Reserve, not the UK.

      1. bgamall profile image81
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I am sure Britain refined, as the most powerful nation, the concept of central banking beyond what any one else had done. Even Wikipedia says that the foundation of the modern central bank was the Bank of England. The primary reason the colonies revolted was the Bank of England, yet we have been taken over by the central bank cartel anyway!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

        BTW, Marx wanted a central bank that was beholden to the communist party. That is not what we have. We have a central bank beholden to the banksters and they make the profit, not the communist party.

  7. Joy56 profile image60
    Joy56posted 6 years ago

    I do not like reading all the negatives things about us Brits...... can we change the subject.......

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Most of it is factually incorrect, for most of the stuff mentioned it was the WHOLE of Europe who were doing the stuff, not just the Brits.

      1. Joy56 profile image60
        Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        here here ........................................  You want to live in Ireland with an English accent, it is very difficult most days.......  They are not keen on us to say the least, apparantly we ruined everything Irish.......  Well Oliver Cromwell did.

        1. bgamall profile image81
          bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oliver Cromwell overthrew the king of England to establish another state religion in place of the one existing. And Newt Gingrich counts this murderer as being a hero. But he killed the king and that was murder.

          Having said that, my one trip to London for a month many years ago was wonderful and I love the country.

          1. Joy56 profile image60
            Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            good man, London is a great place, if you go at the right time, you get to see the queen

            1. bgamall profile image81
              bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Just saw the changing of the guard, but my favorite place by far was Hampstead Heath. I loved that area so much I wrote a hub about it. smile

              1. Joy56 profile image60
                Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace,
                Where Christipher Robin goes down with Alice......

                  Did you see the Beefeaters in the Tower of London..... It is ages since i went to London, and when i do go i go to theatre trips..... Such a Philistine.

                1. bgamall profile image81
                  bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Didn't make it to the Tower Bridge but saw it from a distance.

                  1. Joy56 profile image60
                    Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    You will have to visit again, then fly out to see us in Ireland.

  8. AngelTrader profile image59
    AngelTraderposted 6 years ago

    While I agree eugenics was a dangerous avenue of scientific endeavour it wasn't the originators who have turned the science on the general population.

    That policy is one embraced by the Bilderbergs of this world who seek massive population decreases in order to keep control. Flouride in water being one tactic, others include chemical aerial spraying of aluminum, bromide and other toxic substances including biological ones into the atmosphere; unnecessary vaccination programs (funded massively by the Bill Gates Foundation) on the back of media driven scares such as bird flu; genetically modified food promoted by NWO companies such as Monsanto. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Global populations are being groomed for culling. Time to wake up sheeple!

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I know, but what can we do about it? Not a lot.

      Add Swine Flu to that list, a nice little tester for something bigger; the next one will have something alien in the vaccine no doubt.

      I suspect that the intention is to make us all infertile rather than to 'cull' us. Discrete sterilization.

      THIS is what my book is going to be about, by the way.

      1. Joy56 profile image60
        Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        let me know when it is published so i can get a copy......

      2. AngelTrader profile image59
        AngelTraderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Inform as many people as you can.

        Just keep plugging away. I use my facebook page to constantly raise awareness among my friends about what is going on. But I am worried about the effects fluoride has had on them. Even here in 'clean, green New Zealand' they fluoridate the water.

        As for the next great flu scare we have had 'bird', 'swine' how about 'bovine'. They seem to be working their way through the farm! Or will they develop something from sheep to feed the sheeple! Maybe a convenient genetic mutation of scrapie which will be added to the vaccines for 'our' benefit!

        1. profile image0
          ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Well, writing a book is surely the best thing that I can do lol

          I'll hit you up in a year, then you can ping that to your fb friends wink

          I own a fountain pen the way, it's a parker.

      3. bgamall profile image81
        bgamallposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I believe people should voluntarily limit family size because of the attacks on mainstreet by the banksters. But Eugenics is a dangerous doctrine and Malthus was a disturbing fellow.

        However, the CFR may even want a big reduction in world population. So I don't trust government in this realm at all.

  9. Micky Dee profile image81
    Micky Deeposted 6 years ago

    "I am writing a book, by the way, on 21st century eugenics. I'll let you know when it is finished." America helped Germany write its books so I'm pretty sure America helped the British. I think the book I read was "The War On The Weak". with the name eugenics in there somewhere. Is there no way to isolate the genes that cause such asinine voting? Of course we shouldn't expect much with all the candidates being "selected" for us all. Good luck with your book.

    1. Joy56 profile image60
      Joy56posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      wow we are all writing books, about eugenics, well all two of you, brilliant, look forward to the completion of your book Micky

      1. Micky Dee profile image81
        Micky Deeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Oh no- I'm not. writing. I just read the book I mentioned. God bless with your endeavors. No my book would be, "Why Do Voters Get Dumber At Election Time?" or "Voter Amnesia!" or "Will there Ever Be A Lawyer Who Won't Screw A Country Up?" - Sorry - there is no limitation on my titles -  "Eugenics Must Not Work!"

    2. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I have no idea what book you are talking about, but if hiring an American editor to translate my British English into American English counts then I suppose that an American would be helping me to write the book.

      Unless you are suggesting that the Americans helped Charles Dickins and William Shakespeare, I doubt it, and hell... American literacy levels are in freefall wink

      1. Micky Dee profile image81
        Micky Deeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "I am writing a book, by the way, on 21st century eugenics. I'll let you know when it is finished." - I was just repeating the statement you made. Other than that - there was an attempt at humor. Good luck!

        1. profile image0
          ryankettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Oh OK, its been a long day for me wink It's 11pm over this site of the pond. Cheers, I will need it, 20000 words down, 180000 left to go yikes

        2. Pearldiver profile image81
          Pearldiverposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Nice One Micky.... Mine sailed right over as well big_smile

          Clearly it was not such a smart thing having my Norman/Irish blood distilled with Manuka Honey! hmm

          And I was going to complain that they gave up so easily at the Battle of Hastings, as well........ smile

          Good Luck RK with your book... Oh btw.. those are 'school approved' 'sandals' both in NZ and in Aussi. - Remember that if you come DownUnder.. you might be better off wearing socks with them if you wear them own here! lol

          Take Care
          Regards Eugene... smile

  10. Larry Fields profile image80
    Larry Fieldsposted 6 years ago

    What is the worst thing that the British have done for modern society?

    I'd have to say that British cuisine is at the top of that list. True, the Brits have great desserts, like Trifle, and good meat pies. But they boil the bejesus out of their veggies. And let's not even talk about about Scottish Haggis. Old saying: In Hell, the British are the cooks. Fortunately for British people who have occasional cravings for real food, they can always go to an Indian restaurant.

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The image of Brits boiling the bejesus out of veggies is about fifty years out of date. We no longer put the Christmas day Brussels sprouts on to boil in October!
      And very few, if any, subscribe to the view that cabbage should be boiled for an hour any more.

      Haggis is an acquired taste but one more easily acquired than Grits! What's that all about?

      1. Larry Fields profile image80
        Larry Fieldsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hominy Grits? I wouldn't know. That's a dish from the Deep South, and I live in Nth California. I do eat corn tortillas though.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          They eat a lot of grits in Philadelphia!

    2. thisisoli profile image72
      thisisoliposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Of course most indian restaurants serve the British indian food not actual Indian food tongue

      And have you tried haggis? It is really pretty good!

      1. Larry Fields profile image80
        Larry Fieldsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Have I tried haggis? The food regulations here are a bit strange. Sheep innards are not officially recognized as being safe for human consumption. In California, we have semi-legal medical cannabis, but there's absolutely no exemption for medical haggis! The upshot: You can get Americanized haggis here in the Golden State, with cattle offal substituted for the sheep offal.

        Yes, I've tried this version. And I concur with a friend's description: Haggis is the vilest stuff that's ever passed my lips in either direction!

  11. Greek One profile image76
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    They let the treasonous colonists in America leave the Empire without putting up a real fight smile

  12. thisisoli profile image72
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    As to English Colonization - a few points.

    England did invade plenty of countries - true.

    But for the most part we took infrastructure and education to teh countries that we occupied, there were far from tyranical rulings apart from in a few areas, which were more down to individuals than the rule of Britain. If you check the history, and even modern day success of the majority of ex-British colonial states you will find some fantastic sub cultures.

    The same applies to French, Portugese and Spanish colonies (All of which were also vast). There were bad people in some places, but for the most part they were successful.

 
working